Observations could warn of threats
to ecosystems on which humans depend

But, say a team of ocean
experts, sometimes we don’t know what’s important until it’s too late, and that ignorance
can come back to bite us. Their article in the new issue of BioScience calls for establishment of a
national network to monitor the diversity of marine life, a key bellwether of
ocean and human health.

The article’s lead author,
Professor J. Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, says, “We
depend on ocean life for food, livelihoods, and half the oxygen we breathe—no
matter how far inland we live. We know the ocean is sick and getting sicker but
we don’t even have a finger on the pulse, so to speak, so we’re not sure how
bad it is or how to cure it. Our paper offers a plan for regular check-ups to
keep sea life healthy”

A comprehensive marine
biodiversity observation network could be established with modest funding
within five years, say Duffy and his co-authors—from the Marine Biological Laboratory
in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, the University of Kansas, the Florida Museum of
Natural History, the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography,
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of California
Davis.

To be most effective, the
authors say, such a network would monitor biodiversity at all biological levels,
from microscopic genes to regional ecosystems. It would also link observations of
biodiversity to the physical factors controlling sea life such as water temperature
and water quality, and be flexible enough to detect and track emerging issues
as environmental conditions change.

The authors also stress
that an observing network for marine biodiversity should be “designed by
nature, not people.” Says Duffy, “The location of the network’s individual sites
should be based on where organisms live, and on factors like water temperature
and currents, rather than on political boundaries. That will ensure that insights
into biodiversity change and its causes are environmentally relevant.”

They envision a network with
sites along both the East and West coasts of the United States, with other
nodes focusing on the deep sea and coral reefs. A U.S. network would complement
regional efforts already underway in the European Union, New Zealand, and
elsewhere, and could incorporate technology and lessons learned from existing
“ocean observing systems” that focus on measurements of physical factors such
as water temperature, wave height, current speed and direction, salinity, and
oxygen levels.

The technology for a marine
biodiversity observation network already exists in the form of high-tech gear
such as AUVs (autonomous underwater vehicles), ROVs (remotely operated
vehicles), ocean drifters, and monitoring buoys. These would complement and
extend ship- and shore-based research efforts, both by academic researchers and
a cadre of citizen scientists.

“Developing human resources
is as important as technical innovation in creating a successful network,” the
authors write. “To maximize participation and accessibility, [the network] should
. . . result in products that are widely usable. Creative use of citizen
science could also broaden support, engage the public, and reduce costs.”
Collected data—whether from new observations or historical research—would be
made readily accessible online, allowing for analysis of current conditions and
long-term trends.

“A comprehensive network to
monitor marine biodiversity is not pie in the sky—or sea,” says Duffy. “We can start
right now by building on existing infrastructure, networks, and technology, and
then gradually expand. We already have the technology; the challenges are to
coordinate existing efforts into a proactive and flexible approach of adaptive
monitoring. That will save money, and potentially property and lives, by
anticipating hazards resulting from a changing ocean.”